29
Nov
CBS has run an article:
Top Corporate PACs Favored GOP
The top-giving corporate political action committees didn’t hedge their bets in the fall elections despite the narrow division between the GOP and Democrats in Congress.
They favored Republican candidates 10-to-1.
Of 268 corporate PACs that donated $100,000 or more to presidential and congressional candidates from January 2003 through the middle of last month, 245 gave the majority of their contributions to GOP hopefuls, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service.
Twenty-three corporate PACs made more than half their donations to Democratic candidates, according to the study, based on the most recent campaign finance reports available.
Corporate PACs are financed with limited donations from company employees, who can each give up to $5,000 per year. In turn, the PACs can donate up to $5,000 for a primary and another $5,000 for the general election to each federal candidate they support.
No money from the corporation itself can go to congressional or presidential candidates.
Nice spin, CBS. Limiting it to private sector is the ONLY way CBS could make a headline like this. What is so evil about private sector corporations? Huh? Try spinning it some other ways:
Top 20 PAC contributions, period:
| National Laborers Union | $2,214,000 |
| Assn of Trial Lawyers of America | $1,900,999 |
| Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers | $1,871,230 |
| United Auto Workers | $1,824,200 |
| National Assn of Realtors | $1,797,833 |
| Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union | $1,769,500 |
| American Federation of Teachers | $1,567,800 |
| Service Employees International Union | $1,417,500 |
| Carpenters & Joiners Union | $1,335,060 |
| American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees | $1,301,498 |
| Teamsters Union | $1,255,116 |
| Ironworkers Union | $1,224,100 |
| Communications Workers of America | $1,130,450 |
| United Food & Commercial Workers Union | $1,102,141 |
| Sheet Metal Workers Union | $1,072,150 |
| National Education Assn | $1,065,900 |
| Operating Engineers Union | $1,055,425 |
| American Postal Workers Union | $1,043,000 |
| Plumbers/Pipefitters Union | $1,018,450 |
| Air Line Pilots Assn | $995,500 |
| Democrat Total: | $27,961,852 |
| National Assn of Realtors | $1,955,250 |
| National Auto Dealers Assn | $1,800,800 |
| National Beer Wholesalers Assn | $1,660,000 |
| American Medical Assn | $1,508,841 |
| United Parcel Service | $1,444,534 |
| Wal-Mart Stores | $1,250,500 |
| National Assn of Home Builders | $1,194,200 |
| Associated Builders & Contractors | $1,137,000 |
| SBC Communications | $1,120,433 |
| Credit Union National Assn | $1,064,841 |
| Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu | $982,759 |
| American Bankers Assn | $908,367 |
| Americans for a Republican Majority | $840,278 |
| American Dental Assn | $826,007 |
| National Restaurant Assn | $803,997 |
| Union Pacific Corp | $778,383 |
| American Hospital Assn | $775,045 |
| FedEx Corp | $754,000 |
| Volunteer PAC | $719,000 |
| Natl Assn Insurance & Financial Advisors | $713,000 |
| Republican Total: | $22,237,235 |
PAC contributions represented 1% of George Bush’s funding, PACs represented less than 1% of Kerry’s funding. In other words, PACs didn’t have much of an impact at all on this election cycle when put in proper perspective. So, what’s CBS’s ulterior motive IMO?
527 spending dwarfed PACs in this election. They also heavily favored Kerry. They are also now under political attack. This is CBS’s effort IMO to distract and distory the anti-527 argument. PACs have been reigned in. They are not much of an issue now. Come on CBS, do the public a REAL service and do an analysis of 527 spending. Go ahead. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya.
Until it happens, this is just another daily example of CBS bias. I bet people didn’t realize the amount of bias that is dumped on them. I have two or three examples today. And, I haven’t even gotten past CBS.
29
Nov
CBS has done a decent piece on the events surrounding Ahmad Al Halabi and James Yee, the two charged at Gitmo for spying. Yee’s apparently not allowed to discuss his case, but Ahmad is talking. CBS clearly labels him a "victim". However, Al Halabi admits he made mistakes and did some things wrong, and we don’t get the full detail of his alibi, did he actually get married or not? Granted most of the case against Al Halabi was circumstantial, not all of it was. He may or may not be a spy, but he definitely gave enough clues to get himself charged and actually convicted on a couple. He’s no victim. Yee, a chaplain, was convicted of adultery and downloading pornography, he’s certainly no victim either. If he had been doing what it was he was hired to do, there would have been no problem there either.
But, regardless, according to CBS, even though both of these guys have been convicted, they are the victims.
That’s bias folks, it just never stops at CBS.
28
Nov
Here’s MSNBC’s take on things, which a lot of people in the lower 48 seem to agree with:
As a result, activists are planning to bombard senators with phone calls and e-mails opposed to drilling.
Hell, they even sweeten the activist pot by running a pick of the musk oxen that will be wiped completely out by the drilling:
Musk oxen graze along the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. A small part of the coastal area could be opened to oil development under a plan championed by President Bush.
And, according to MSNBC, it’s all because the Republicans want it. That’s all. They make no mention of what Alaskans want. There’s a reason they don’t quote Alaskans who know the land. Wanna know why? OK, here it is:
As a resident of Alaska, I’ve learned to be careful voicing my own opinions. Any concern over the possible impact of oil extraction is usually viewed as selling out to those in the "lower 48."
That may seem a bit odd, since most people who live here came because of a deep love of the country. It’s not an easy place to live. Costs are high, jobs are scarce, and there’s a little problem with the weather.
So to live here, you’ve got to love it. But there are reasons why so many Alaskans favor oil development, despite some environmental consequences.
This is oil patch, USA. Oil revenues pay for state government in a region where doing anything costs a bundle. There is no state income tax, and with fewer than 700,000 residents, there’s little chance of supporting state operations through taxes.
Plumping Alaska’s Budgets
About 15 years ago, a decade after oil began flowing through the Alaska pipeline from the Prudoe Bay field, which is west of the refuge, I visited a high school in Point Barrow at the northern tip of the state. Before oil, the impoverished community housed its students in quonset huts. But the new school had everything, including computers on every desk, and an Olympic-sized indoor swimming pool.
The $50 million school wouldn’t have been there without oil.
The state receives 90 percent of the government’s revenues from Prudoe, and part of that goes into a savings account that now amounts to about $26 billion. Every man, woman and child in the state receives an annual "dividend" from the fund. Last year it was over $2,000. That’s a hefty annual reminder of the role oil plays in the state’s economy.
Ironically, the fund was the brain child of former Gov. Jay Hammond, who wanted part of the oil income set aside to force the state to develop other revenue sources. Years ago he told me he did not want to see the state become dependent on a non-renewable resource, but that plan backfired big time. The state is more dependent on oil now than ever before, and the annual checks guarantee that most residents will do little to inhibit the growth of the industry.
OK, so who do you think should have the right to determine what Alaska does with their resources? Huh? The Lower 48 or the people that live there? Simple question. Apparently some people feel The Lower 48, or more specifically, California, should have the right to tell everyone else what to do. I don’t. If the Alaskans want to drill oil, let them. If the Californians don’t, then they don’t.
This is just another perfect example of media bias.
27
Nov
Very quietly, California’s AB 205 took effect. This is the The Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003. It grants persons of the same sex the same legal rights as those of a married couple. This law becomes fully effective January 1, 2005. This law was signed September 19, 2003. This was well before the marrying mayor of San Francisco tried to circumvent the legal system outraging 11 states enough to put legislation on their ballots and upsetting enough people to pass laws banning gay marriages in every single one of those states. And, very possibly costing John Kerry the presidency. Now, the net effect of what the idiot mayor of San Francisco wanted was already in place before he pulled his stunt. He probably cost people in eleven states the chance of ever having the same benefits as the people in his town were already getting anyway.
Think about that the next time you feel like supporting someone intentionally circumventing the legal process. Think about that Rosie. Think real hard about it.
An excellent summation of the SSI issue and how it might fit into the "new" policy of "Starve the Beast" of Federal Entitlements. Not a series of "statistics" and reports, rather a philosophical look at the true purpose of "privitization of the SSI system", and a change to the "Social Contract" that existed in this country since 1936.
Enjoy but go to the URL for the whole piece. KBM (aka kentm401)
26
Nov
The United Nations was created to replace the League of Nations, which basically fell into uselessness in 1946 following the end of World War II. The primary purpose of the United Nations was to provide a world court and military to broker peace in war torn areas. Quite frankly, it has never done this on a predictable course. Some areas have been ravaged for decades with no UN intervention or assistance ( see Africa ), while the UN has maintained forces in areas that serve no practical purpose ( see Korea ). The UN fiasco that is Iraq has IMO just hammered home how biased and inefficient the UN has become. They supported no-fly zones for a decade with no resolution. The Oil-for-food scandal just keeps getting bigger, with very possible ties to the events of 9/11. The resistance of the UN to resolve the US-Iraqi crisis has likely conflicts of interest with UN members receiving kickbacks from Iraq. Add to that that the UN has more often than not failed to pay its rent and the problems UN members have caused while enjoying immunity in the US, and I just don’t see a lot of reasons for the US to host the UN any more. In this day of advanced communications and recon, building immediate coalitions to handle an issue is much easier than trying to get all the members of the UN to come to any conclusion at all. Sanctions and reprimands have failed repeatedly to deter acts of aggression. Sometimes, it just takes a strong military strike to get the message accross.
This site is petitioning certain members of Congress to kick the UN out, asking specifically for:
- Removal of the United Nations Headquarters facilities from New York, relocating it outside of the United States and any of its territories.
- A thorough review of the US financial contributions to the UN with a goal of a more equitable payment schedule. Until that review is concluded, eliminate all the payments made by the United States to the United Nations.
I have signed this petition. Although we’re a long way from kicking the UN out, letting our representatives know we are not at all pleased with the direction of the UN the last ten years or so is enough of a reason for me to sign it.
I would gladly entertain justification here of why the UN should stay.
Didn’t I just bitch about San Francisco being FUBAR? I mean, wasn’t it just yesterday? This is nuts, folks. Plain nuts. Besides being anti-American, Vidmar is trampling all over the teacher’s Freedom of Speech. That’s a pretty serious thing if you ask me.
Secondly, this is how out of whack urban Californians are getting: From the Declaration of Independence: ( Am I REALLY doing this? )
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Note, it says "nature’s God". It doesn’t God of the Hebrews or any specific religion. I’m not sure exactly what "nature’s God" refers to. It’s not in the Bible.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If they are Muslem, their Creator is Allah. If they are Christian, their creator is God. If they are Hindu, their creator is neither of the above. If they are Wiccan, their creator is nature.
The idiot principal in San Francisco, Ms. Vidmar, needs to learn a little more about her history before making rash irrational decisions. If she had bothered studying the least little bit of US history, she would know that most of the authors of the Declaration of Independence were not of the Christian faith. In fact, most had a rather antagonistic attitude regarding organized religion. Either she is clueless or she has a vendetta against Mr. Williams, as he claims. Either way, she’s got problems. Serious problems. The issue I have with it is as an educator, her students are the ones that will get a perverted view of US history.
Sheez California, this isn’t as bad as having NAMBLA meetings at libraries that ban the Boy Scouts, but it’s pretty stupid. If someone would be so kind as to let me know when Ms. Vidmar has been relieved of the pressures of her duties, I would certainly appreciate it.
24
Nov
The background to this post developed from a serious conversation with a friend of mine about how the breadbasket/Bible belt was the determining factor in national politics, and how the Republican Party had effectively positioned itself with that voting block for 20 years. So, I set out to prove us right. However, I came to another conclusion based on the following:
In 1972, when things were still politically stable, ie, pre-Watergate. Richard Nixon ran against George McGovern. Nixon was conservative as hell, McGovern liberal as hell. Nixon was from California, McGovern from South Dakota. This is what happened ( Blue is Republican, Red Democrat ):
Through a series of unusual events, the election of 1976 pitted Gerald Ford of Nebraska against Jimmy Carter of Georgia. This is the result: 
In 1980, the country had gone pretty much to pot. We then had Ronald Reagan of Illinois against Jimmy Carter of Georgia.
However, Reagan had moved to Bel Air, California, long before running for office. Bel Air is south of Plains, GA, if you tilt the map as it should be.
: 
1984 saw Reagan of southern California vs Walter Mondale of Minnesota. This was the historical result:
1988 saw George HW Bush of Texas run against Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. This was the result:
1992 saw Bill Clinton of Arkansas run against the incumbant George HW Bush. Now, although George’s accent was less northern than Dukakis’, it was no match for Bill’s:
1996 had Bill Clinton of Arkansas against Bob Dole of Kansas:
2000 had George W. Bush of Texas against Al Gore of Tennessee. Both were from the South, but Bush just sounded a lot more Southern.
And finally, 2004 saw George W. Bush of Texas against John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Last eight races, only one had the more "northern" candidate winning, that being Bill Clinton, who would hardly be considered anything but a good ole Southern boy.
The conclusion I come to based on this overwhelming evidence is that it’s not a red state/blue state thing, as I’m not looking at the results from a state perspective. It’s not a conservative vs liberal thing. It’s not even an urban vs rural thing.
The conclusion that has to be drawn from this is the Civil War is not quite over yet, and the South’s kicking ass.
( Special special kudos to Dave Liep for putting together the ultimate Presidential election page that I reference repeatedly on the Webdream. )
23
Nov
[Monday night, KRON aired the first in a two-part "Target 4" investigative report on NAMBLA. Here's a transcript of that report. The reporter is Greg Lyon so, if you followup, please change your attributions accordingly.]
An organization dedicated to helping its members meet children and then molest them without getting caught holds its regular monthly meetings in a branch of the San Francisco Public Library. We’re talking about children as young as three years old.
The Portrero Hill branch of the San Francisco Public Library on a Saturday afternoon: downstairs, children — some with parents, some by themselves. And upstairs, this scene captured by our Target 4 hidden camera. This is the regular monthly meeting of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. This is not a counseling session, not an attempt to help NAMBLA members control their lust for children. Quite the opposite. On this day the group discussed putting together a calendar of nude boys as a fundraiser.
The Los Angeles City Council voted 11 to 0 to cut the city’s ties with the Boy Scouts of America, saying the group’s exclusion of homosexuals and atheists was discriminatory. The council instructed the Los Angeles Police Department to dismantle its Explorers unit, a Boy Scouts-affiliated police cadet training program for young people, within 90 days, and create an alternative, said Laura Esquivel, assistant to Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, a gay rights activist who heads the city’s personnel committee and was a major backer of the measure. In addition, the city’s department of Parks and Recreation will, in the future, charge the Boy Scouts a fee to use its facilities for camping and other activities, Esquivel said.
I can’t make this stuff up. I would LOVE to see a NAMBLA meeting in MY local library. Child molestation and child pornography are punishable by death here ( that’s not according to law ). The very essence of being gay is illegal here:
Kentucky begins its chapter of sexual offenses by defining "deviate sexual intercourse" as "any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one (1) person and the mouth or anus of another". Later in the chapter it defines the criminal violation of sodomy in the fourth degree as a person who "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex."
In California, the very essence of not being gay is becoming illegal. I mean think about it San Francisco, you’re telling young boys it’s illegal to learn how to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. But, it’s perfectly legal and OK to offer young boys to older men for their sexual gratification. You can’t go to the library to learn to Be clean in my outdoor manners, Be careful with fire, Be considerate in the outdoors, and Be conservation minded. But, you can go to the local publicly funded library to get molested. And, of course, you’re certainly not allowed to encourage kids to Do A Good Turn Daily, but you’re certainly allowed to encourage your kids to do a good trick daily.
That’s nuts San Francisco and Los Angeles. I don’t care how sensitive you might be to the gay issue, but that’s just FUBAR. I need to explain something that no one in California seems to get: The Boy Scouts don’t condone, discourage, encourage, or suggest any type of sexual behavior at all. None. In order to keep sex a non-issue, they have Girls Scouts. Get it now? If you don’t, I’ll explain it more. Sex is a non-issue with the Scouts. Look through all their rules, I’ve listed them for you. If, you allow homosexual men, especially perverts like the NAMBLA guys, into the Boy Scouts, THEN sex becomes an issue. Get it now?
Sheez, California. How worse can you all screw things up? I don’t think you can other than just totally legalizing child prostitution. Don’t take that as a suggestion, it’s sarcasm.
This was originally a comment from Hedonistix, but merits it’s own post for sure.
Space/Moon:
Closing unused revolving accounts will NOT improve or hurt your credit score. Your credit score relies on various metrics but the most important being nothing "past due".
Someone with high expense/income ratio and revolving balances can have higher rating than those with higher income/expense ratio and pay off their balance in full every month, as long as nothing is "past due" as they are deemed to be more ‘business-worthy’ than those who paid (CC companies don’t earn interest out of the pay in full folks and they don’t like this group as much as those with revolving balances).
My tip on CC management:
1. It’s usually better to have more than less cards. Does not mean that you have to use every single one. I found the usefulness of this when traveling abroad.
Apparently, some card companies (like MBNA) automatically will "block" your card the first time you shop abroad unless you call them before you leave and inform them about your travel plan.
It would have been a pain if I had only 1 card.
2. Get only cards that will give you highest rebates and 0% transfer until balance is paid (if any).
I have the latest from Citi called PremierPass which gives me 1% for every net purchase and 1% + "Travel Points" for tix. purchases which I use as my main one.
For gas purchases, I have a Chase card that spits me back 3% for gas purchases and 1% on everything else.
I also got a special promo. from MBNA Worldpoints that spits me back 10% for one year up to $25/month ($250 purchase) plus 1% on the remainder. It’s not a typo. folks, it’s really 10% back. So I’m using this for the first $250 I spend each month.
I also have a ‘dormant’ LL Bean card that I use only to shop at LL Bean to give me free shipping + free monograming (that’s why my work shirts are monogrammed), which value is around $20 = $7 monogram + $10 up for shipping.
Those who shop at Costco should get the American Express 1% rebate. Why pay Costco in cash/check?
3. If you need better deal for balance transfer, for example, call and ask. If you are a paying customer, almost always you’ll get it. It’s not a cliche BUT I know for sure it costs CC companies much more money to get new customers than to give deals to current good ones. Especially if you’re given special rates like 2.9% or 0.9%, 99% you’ll be able to get 0%. If you carry balances, that 0.9% difference adds up quickly as they are compounded on a daily balance basis.
I’m also using my 0% priviledge (usually for 6-12 months) to park the account at ING Direct for 2.2%. What’s better than risk-free arbitrage? (other than monitoring 2 extra accounts each month?)
4. Most importantly, register all accounts online and monitor them each month for suspicious activities. Most have unauthorized coverage anyway but make sure you don’t miss the due date for payment. It’s amazing how people think this is hard to do. I monitor probably 20+ (CC, bank, brokerage, utilities, etc.) accounts online all in less than 1 hour. I’m not a rocket scientist, if I can do it, I’m assuming everyone else can as well.
And so on. The essence is to find the best deal for YOUR shopping habits/patterns. It also amazes me that most people I know don’t even have cards with rebates just because they think it’s a hassle to shop around or those who pay with cash/check and say that credit cards influence you to shop more? It’s ridiculous. It’s really the closest thing to "free money", which comes very hard these days.
